Amid former president Trump’s visit to the Libertarian National Convention and Chase Oliver’s subsequent nomination, discussions about Libertarian Party immigration platforms emerge.
Libertarian policies, which emphasize open borders and free movement across countries, get mixed reception from both conservative and libertarian voters. Conservatives are quick to point out immigration as a point of deep disagreement between themselves and libertarians – typically overlapping ideologically on other issues.
Many conservatives on X are pointing out that Oliver’s Libertarian platform aligns more closely with Biden’s open borders. This has also sparked discussions about how broadly aligned Republicans, and even Trump himself, are with Libertarians.
Libertarians and Immigration
Libertarians, true to their philosophical principles, usually advocate for less government intervention across the board. This includes freer migration policies influenced by a belief in the free market and individual rights – or more simply, open borders. They often view ideas like a border wall as an imprudent use of tax dollars. They say government intervention at the border is contrary to their overall philosophy.
This group also argues free labor movement is beneficial to the economy and individual liberty, rather than hurtful to American sovereignty. However, not all libertarians agree with this perspective. Some express skepticism about completely open borders, particularly in terms of security and preserving the nation's cultural and social fabric.
Many voters view Chase Oliver’s platform as advocating open borders based on freedom and prosperity. Some Libertarians envision a world where people are free to move and seek opportunities anywhere in the world. They often highlight the historic role immigrants played in fueling American innovation and economic growth. They assert fears of economic and cultural displacement are both misplaced and overstated.
Conservative Views of Libertarian Borders
Right leaning and conservative voters, especially under the current administration, widely disagree with Libertarian immigration policies. They tend to view border security and stopping migrant entries into the U.S. as extremely important.
Conservatives are more likely to support building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants. This view is underpinned by their emphasis on national security and protecting jobs and resources. This group also attributes illegal immigration as a major contributor to issues like crime and economic hardship.
Republicans and conservatives regularly cite border security, economic impact, rule of law, and national identity as top issues. They sometimes accuse the Libertarian Party of supporting lawlessness by advocating for open borders. They are also more likely to criticize Libertarians for having minimal support and political impact.
Some point to polling reports by outlets like Axios and Reuters/Ipsos identifying more than 50% of Americans – including Democrats – support mass deportations.
56% of US registered voters support deporting most or all immigrants living in the country illegally, Reuters/Ipsos poll has found.
Donald Trump’s comments at the Libertarian National Convention also sparked discussion about the impact of the party. MAGA and conservatives who attended or viewed Trump’s remarks largely embraced what he said.
Trump supporters view his American-first immigration policies as safeguarding American values, jobs, and security. Despite the policy disagreements with Libertarians, they saw Trump's willingness to engage Libertarians as a true reflection of his assertive leadership style and an attempt to create unity on the right.
As for Trump himself, amid taunts and jeers from the crowd, he told Libertarians, "Maybe you don't want to win,” adding, “Keep getting your 3% every four years,” roasting the unruly audience.
Some argue Trump’s comments are accurate – especially with Libertarian policies like open borders becoming increasingly unpopular.
Trump just showed up to the Libertarian Party Convention, told libertarians "Maybe you don't want to win ... keep getting your 3 percent every four years,” then left.
New York Rep. Elise Stefanik filed a complaint calling for a conflict-of-interest investigation of Judge Merchan. She cites potential bias in Merchan’s history as a Democrat donor and his daughter’s financial interests.
Many who agree with Stefanik argue the judge's conduct clearly favors the prosecution and he has shown the appearance of prejudging the case before all the evidence was heard. Legal experts from across the political spectrum allege biases which put the fairness of the trial in question.
🚨🚨🚨 I just filed an official misconduct complaint with the New York State Unified Court System related to the “random” assignment of Acting Manhattan Justice Juan Merchan, a Biden donor whose daughter is fundraising millions off his unprecedented work, to criminal cases… pic.twitter.com/OsBjFc3qeI
Many observers, although conservatives are most vocal, express concern over payments made to Loren Merchan, Judge Merchan’s daughter. There are allegations she has received significant amounts of money from prominent Democrats.
Critics argue these monetary transactions indicate a potential bias on the part of Judge Merchan, suggesting he may not be capable of conducting a fair trial. Others argue Merchan’s daughter is likely to financially profit in the case of a Trump conviction. This, they say, is an issue – even if it’s only a perception of compromised incentives.
Democrats tend to argue that Merchan has maintained a neutral stance in the trial. They view him as fair, despite the politically charged nature of the case. They argue Merchan's conduct upholds the integrity of the judicial process and emphasizes that the law should be applied equally to all.
Legal experts on the left insist Judge Merchan's conduct is consistent with judicial norms and ethical standards. This view is starkly and vehemently opposed by experts who present theirregularities of Merchan’s rulings as highly alarming and outside of acceptable judicial practice.
Those who support Stefanik’s misconduct filing call for more complaints against the judge. They express frustration at what they perceive as inaction by Republicans to fight against lawfare by Democrats.
Sentiment towards Donald Trump is similar overall to topics specifically mentioning his legal troubles. This may suggest most voters are not deeply swayed by the cases against him.
Liberal Hysterics Against Republicans
Mainstream opinions on Elise Stefanik's ethics complaint against Judge Juan Merchan appear to be overwhelmingly negative. This is especially true among liberal Democrats and mainstream media figures.
Liberals accuse Stefanik of prioritizing the interests of former President Trump over the needs of the American people. They view Stefanik's ethics complaint as an extension of her loyalty to Trump rather than as a duty to uphold law and order. Democrats who hope for a Trump conviction use phrases like “hypocrite” and “treacherous” against Stefanik and other Republicans.
There are reverse accusations that Stefanik and Republicans are the ones using lawfare to achieve their political ends. Some bring up Trump and others’ failure to comply with subpoenas as a broader disregard for the rule of law. They use this as an argument against the supposed “law and order” ethos of the Republican Party.
Democrats argue Stefanik is attempting to thwart the legal process, deflecting from accusations against Judge Merchan and other figures who are perceived to be politicized like Letitia James, Engoron, and Fani Willis.
Despite widespread liberal criticism, Stefanik’s national approval has remained steady, even increasing by one point after filing her ethics complaint.
The issue around illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections has recently become a point of discussion, especially for those concerned about securing the border. In general, illegal immigrants, which Democrats have begun calling “non-citizens” do not have the right to vote under the U.S. Constitution. This is based on a belief in the immemorial prerogative of every independent nation. However, contentions are beginning to arise across different political and ideological lines.
Conservatives tend to emphasize the importance of citizenship in voting rights, arguing illegal immigrants voting would devalue the privilege and duty of citizens. Theysay anyone voting who is in the country illegally inherently commits voter fraud and allowing it is a manipulation by Democrats.
There are many who believe the increasing possibility of illegal immigrants from many countries voting threatens the integrity of the political process in the United States. They argue citizenship should be a minimum requirement for political participation. Votersexpress fears the open border will lead to an influx of non-citizens influencing U.S. electoral outcomes.
Many also emphasize the need for greater scrutiny and verification of the ballot process. This includes calls for every state to introduce ballot verifiers like voter ID to ensure free and fair elections.
Across the political spectrum, there seems to be an increased desire for transparency and scrutiny to maintain election integrity. However, Democrats tend to fear interference by figures like former President Trump. Republicans are more likely to fear Democrat cheating, including allowing illegal aliens to vote.
Democrat Hypocrisy and Election Cheating
Many Americans accuse politicians and of obfuscating their intentions and betraying their constituents’ desires. The House recently voted to repeal an existing law allowing non-citizens to vote in local D.C. elections. This generated criticism toward the 143 Democrats who voted against repealing the law.
🚨🚨🚨
143 extreme House Democrats just voted to allow ILLEGAL migrants to vote in DC elections. pic.twitter.com/1EhrM9T1V0
The existence of laws like the one in D.C. – and Democrat support for it – causes many Americans to disbelieve protests from Democrats denying their desire to allow non-citizen voting. Democrats deflect on humanitarian grounds, claiming allegations about illegal immigrants voting are just strategies to justify hardline immigration policies. They assert many immigrants are refugees escaping dire conditions and are not seeking to impact U.S. elections.
Liberal voters tend to believe illegal immigrants, especially long-term residents who contribute to the economy and society, should have a say in decisions that affect their lives. They argue if these residents are expected to obey the laws of the country, they should have a voice in creating them. Advocates say allowing non-citizens to vote can be a means of fostering civic participation and political integration, granting representation to the diverse communities within the country.
However, these arguments mostly serve to foment conservative fears that Democrats are being opaque about their true desires. More conservative and moderate voters are expressing fears that Democrat hypocrisy is driven by a desire to use illegal immigrants to cheat in the 2024 election. They point out Democrats want more options as Biden’s poll numbers continue to tank among traditional voting groups.
Mainstream Media Negligence
Conservative voters are skeptical of the mainstream media's reporting on the border and election integrity. They believe major news networks like CNN and the New York Times fail to report the truth about border and voting issues. They also think biased media narratives harm the legal voting system and undermine trust in the system.
References to the New York Times using anonymous sources reflect skepticism about whether these sources are reliable. There is a strong sense of media bias, with many voters discrediting media reports about election integrity or process.
Complaints about mainstream media carrying water for Democratic politicians become especially pronounced when outlet like AP News report that illegal immigrants voting is illegal and that, despite Republican fears, it’s not happening “in significant numbers.”
Recently, a whistleblower report made headlines alleging that half of UCLA medical students fail basic tests of medical competence, eliciting serious concerns. MIG Reports analysis shows the discourse is mostly focused ongoing controversies and failures of U.S. higher education.
What Americans Are Saying
Many parents, alumni, and prospective students voice serious concerns about the implications of the report for public health and safety. They also question the integrity of medical education at UCLA. Some suggest the report might represent systemic issues like grade inflation, lower academic standards, or a failure of oversight and accountability within the medical school.
There is also some doubt about the whistleblower's report, with critics arguing it may have been exaggerated or unfounded. To them, the reported failure rate seemed unusually high compared to national norms, leading them to question the report's reliability.
Others are discussing the need for immediate measures to address the alleged failure of medical school education at UCLA. They argue for policy changes, stronger regulation, and potentially increased funding to promote better training.
Views of Affirmative Action
Those in favor of affirmative action argue it's a necessary measure to remedy inequalities caused by racial discrimination in America. They also suggest affirmative action brings about a diversity of perspectives in the professional field, which is seen as beneficial.
However, critics of the affirmative action policy fear it compromises the merit-based principle of admission or hiring. They believe the gateway to various positions or opportunities should be open to individuals based on their qualifications, not aspects like race or ethnicity.
Many suggest the standard criterion for selection, usually test scores, better predicts the realistic capability of students to complete their degrees. Some also fear those admitted through affirmative action might get into financial trouble with student loans. This is especially true if under-educated or underprepared students cannot complete their degrees.
Sentiment Towards ULCA
Overall sentiment following the whistleblower report is negative, but there appears to be a division. General negative sentiment towards higher education increases among those who believe universities are failing in multiple aspects of their mission. This group accuses academic institutions of failing to manage modern scandals like:
There is some positive sentiment from people who see universities as catalysts for social mobility and tools for societal development. They advocate for more accessible and less costly education, recognition and support for disabled students at colleges, and a fairer distribution of student financial aid.
President Joe Biden's recurring public speaking and teleprompter gaffes have become a deep concern or even a meme for many Americans. These missteps, which include false statements, jumbled or wrong words, pauses, and sometimes confusion, fuel debates about his cognitive abilities. They also lead many to question his leadership capability and overall fitness for office.
Voterreactions to his continual public appearance incidents, which is influenced by social media and the mainstream media are mostly partisan. Biden’s speaking performance is frequently compared to former President Donald Trump’s more spontaneous style. While Trump’s rhetoric is often polarizing, his ability to ad-lib and engage crowds contrasts sharply with Biden’s reliance on prepared speeches and, as MIG Reports previously analyzed – prepared questions.
This dichotomy fuels narratives on both sides: conservatives highlight Biden’s fumbles as a sign of weakness, while liberals emphasize Trump’s unpredictability and controversial remarks as dangerous to democracy.
Social media platforms play a crucial role in amplifying Biden's gaffes. Clips of his verbal mistakes often go viral, reaching a broad audience and fueling discussions about his fitness for office.
Two of his most recent fumbles include:
Calling January 6 protesters “erectionists” instead of what he presumably meant: “insurrectionists.”
Reading from the teleprompter but including notes which aren’t meat to be spoken – in this case, “last name,” referring to his theology professor.
Last week’s public mistakes are not the first of their kind. In April, Biden also read “pause” off the teleprompter instead of pausing his speech for audience participation. That incident also generated significant reactions from people online, criticizing Biden and his presumable handlers who allow these recurring embarrassing gaffes.
BIDEN, reading from his teleprompter: "Four more years? Pause?"
Some of the of the commentary online voices concern, but much of it also uses the president as a source of humor. Some of the jokes made at his expense include:
"Biden’s teleprompter operator must have the hardest job in the world. They deserve a medal for bravery."
“Biden just said 'America is a nation that can be defined in a single word: Asufutimaehaehfutbw.' I think he just invented a new language!"
"Every time Biden speaks, it's like watching a toddler trying to explain quantum physics. Entertaining but confusing."
"Biden: 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.' Did he just admit to something?"
"Biden: 'I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun.' The man just gave us a free ticket to the weirdest carnival ride ever."
"Biden’s latest gaffe: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the... you know, the thing.’ Clearly, he’s on a first-name basis with the Declaration of Independence."
"Biden: 'I keep forgetting I'm president.' Well Joe, sometimes we do too. Thanks for the reminder!"
Although Democratic voters and political pundits who support the president are reluctant to talk about his clear cognitive limitations, it seems most Americans recognize he is not in top form. Approval ratings continue to slide and MIG Reports data shows that, even on good days, Biden cannot seem to break a neutral sentiment nationally, hovering in the low 40% range.
Leftist Comedians Subvert the Punchline
There is also a notable trend among some celebrities and public figures who dismiss concerns about Biden's gaffes and fitness for office as irrelevant or overblown. This dismissive attitude is alarming to many voters who cannot ignore his slip-ups.
Pro-Biden media personalities and celebrities actively work to reframe these gaffes, often deflecting punchlines or reframing the context to mitigate negative impact. For example, they often juxtapose Biden's gaffes with Trump's controversial statements and supporters imply Biden's mistakes are benign.
Regarding Biden’s “erectionists” comment, most of the left leaning comedians online tweeted similar jokes, shifting the punchline. Instead of roasting Biden for his error, most of them reframed their jokes as a critique of the January 6 protesters themselves.
The Daily Show: "Biden said 'erectionists' instead of 'insurrectionists.' At least someone’s standing up for democracy."
Seth Meyers: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Well, I guess they did rise to the occasion."
Sarah Silverman: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Finally, a political scandal with some stiff competition."
Stephen Colbert: "Biden called insurrectionists ‘erectionists.’ You know, it’s nice to see someone in politics with a sense of humor about their gaffes."
Jimmy Fallon: "Biden’s 'erectionists' comment has people laughing. I guess he wanted to point out that they were really standing up for Trump."
Trevor Noah: "Biden’s 'erectionists' slip is just another reminder: always proofread your speeches, folks. Or you might end up in a very awkward position."
Conan O’Brien: "Biden called them 'erectionists.' Guess we know who’s really rising to the occasion of American politics."
Samantha Bee: "Biden calling them 'erectionists' was a slip of the tongue, but let’s be honest, it’s probably the nicest thing anyone’s said about them."
Most People Are Critical of Biden’s Performance
Unlike the media and celebrities, average Americans often highlight Biden's gaffes as evidence of cognitive decline or incompetence. They argue his frequent mistakes indicate a lack of mental acuity necessary for the role of President. These fumbles often work to undermine his credibility and weaken his public image both domestically and on the international stage.
Critics argue Biden's frequent gaffes alone make him unfit for the presidency, regardless of their stance on his policies. Terms like "incompetent" and "the worst president in our history" are frequently used in these discussions.
There is a prevalent belief among more conservative voters that Biden is merely a puppet controlled by others in his administration. This perspective is often coupled with accusations that his regular confusion exposes the extent to which he is being manipulated.
Election Impact
For undecided or swing voters, repeated public appearance disasters may reinforce a perception of weakness or incapacity. This has the potential to sway their votes towards Trump if he is perceived as more robust and competent.
Media coverage and viral social media posts of gaffes could erode trust in Biden's ability to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. This could also lead to decreased voter confidence and turnout, even within his base.
Voters who prioritize policy or party outcomes over personal traits may overlook Biden's deteriorating state if it means they can avoid a second Trump term. In a head-to-head election, Biden's performance will likely be contrasted with Trump’s speaking abilities. If, in scheduled upcoming debates, Trump performs well, seeming articulate and mentally sharp, it could be a severe disadvantage for Biden.
Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the progressive "Squad," recently tweeted about rain before a Trump rally in her district saying, “God is good,” in response to suggestions there would be a “muddy mess” for the rally. This received a predominantly critical response from voters, particularly those identifying with the MAGA movement.
Many responses to AOC’s tweet emphasized the notion that the Bronx, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, has now turned into "MAGA country." This sentiment was frequently repeated and expressed with a sense of triumph, suggesting a belief in a growing support for Trump and a shift away from Democratic dominance in the area.
Accusations of Hypocrisy and Meltdown
Some accused Ocasio-Cortez of having a "liberal meltdown" and being unable to accept that the Bronx could support Trump. These comments often included a tone of ridicule and mockery, suggesting her reaction was indicative of broader liberal discontent and denial.
Religious Undertones
Others took issue with Ocasio-Cortez invoking God, arguing as a self-identified socialist or communist, she should not be using religious references. Some comments directly accused her of using God’s name in vain or being insincere about her beliefs.
Criticism of Democratic Policies
Several responses linked their support for Trump to dissatisfaction with liberal policies, both at a local and national level. They blamed these policies for various social and economic issues and expressed a desire for change, which they believe Trump represents.
Personal Attacks and Accusations
A portion of the comments included personal attacks on AOC, calling her a communist, a hypocrite, and questioning her authenticity and background. These responses often conflated broader political ideologies with personal character judgments.
Celebration of Rally Success
There was a strong emphasis on Trump rally turnout, with claims of thousands attending, despite the rain. This was used to further argue support for Trump is strong and growing, even in areas presumed to favor Democrats.
Expressions of Solidarity and Celebration
Many responses included celebratory language and emojis, expressing joy over what they perceived as a political victory. Phrases like “liberal tears” and “God is good” were used to underscore their satisfaction with the event and its implications.
Accusations of Violence and Incitement
A few responses went as far as accusing AOC of inciting violence, referencing past events and suggesting her comments could lead to unrest. This reflects a deeper animosity and distrust toward her and her political actions.
Memorial Day is dedicated to honoring and remembering military personnel who have died in service to the United States. The day is marked by various activities including parades, ceremonies, and moments of silence. MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment and discussion around Memorial Day can vary significantly across different ideological backgrounds.
General Sentiment
Most Americans respect and honor Memorial Day as a solemn and significant day. However, many discussions emphasize different aspects of the holiday. The sentiment attached to these discussions can differ markedly between conservative and liberal or progressive circles.
Conservative Perspectives
Conservatives emphasize the themes of patriotism, sacrifice, and national pride. They use Memorial Day as an opportunity to celebrate the military and express gratitude for the freedoms secured by fallen soldiers.
Discussions in conservative circles focus on attending parades, visiting memorials, and participating in ceremonies. There is often a strong sense of community and collective honor in these activities.
The sentiment in conservative circles is predominantly positive but can also be solemn and reflective. There is a strong emotional attachment to the military and a high level of respect for those who have served and sacrificed.
Liberal Perspectives
Liberals often use Memorial Day as a time to reflect on the consequences of war and the importance of peace. They emphasize the human cost of conflict and the need for diplomatic solutions to global issues.
Discussions tend to focus on the experiences of minority groups in the military, how we treat veterans, and issues like mental health and homelessness among former service members.
The sentiment in liberal and progressive circles can be mixed. While there is respect and honor for fallen soldiers, there is also critical reflection on the reasons for war and the treatment of veterans. Emotions can range from solemn to critical, with an underlying call for systemic change.
Partisan Differences on Social Media
Platforms and forums conservatives congregate often feature highly patriotic posts and discussions supporting the military. Users share stories of bravery and sacrifice, often accompanied by American flags and other national symbols.
Liberal social media discussions tend to include tributes to soldiers but are also likely to feature critiques of military interventions and discussions on how to better support living veterans. There are calls for policy changes and discussions on the broader implications of military actions.
Despite ideological differences, both conservative and liberal discussions share a common thread of honoring those who serve the country. However, the context and additional themes discussed can differ widely.
News of 86-year-old Klaus Schwab’s plan to step down from his position at the WEF has generated discussion among Americans who have been following global economic issues and the alleged “Great Reset.” Schwab, also known as “Davos Man,” is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. He has been a central figure in shaping its vision and activities since he founded it in 1971.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an annual gathering of global elites in Davos, Switzerland. It has long been a focal point for discussions on international economic policies, technological advancements, and social issues. However, it has also become a lightning rod for criticism, especially among American voters who are skeptical of globalist agendas.
Many American voters are suspicious, viewing the WEF as an elitist organization which lacks transparency and accountability. This sentiment is often fueled by the perception that the WEF prioritizes the interests of the global elite over those of ordinary citizens.
Views of Klaus Schwab
Klaus Schwab’s leadership style and public statements have made him a polarizing figure. While a few admire his foresight and commitment to global cooperation, most criticize his perceived elitism and advocacy for policies that infringe on national autonomy and personal freedoms.
Some of the reactions include:
"With Schwab retiring, does this mean we can finally upgrade from 'you'll own nothing' to 'you'll own a little bit'?"
"BREAKING: Klaus Schwab to spend retirement knitting sweaters for underprivileged billionaires."
"Klaus Schwab retiring? Guess the WEF will just have to find another Bond villain look-alike."
"Klaus Schwab retiring? Sounds like a distraction. What's the next move, Illuminati?"
"Schwab's retirement won't change anything. The WEF will just replace him with another puppet pushing the same agenda."
Schwab’s retirement could lead to significant changes in the WEF’s direction and priorities. New leadership might adopt different approaches to global issues, potentially altering the forum’s influence on international policy.
Supporters of Schwab and his vision may be concerned about continuity and whether the new leadership will maintain the same commitment to issues like climate change and economic inequality.
Many others, however, view Schwab’s retirement as a positive development. They hope new leadership will steer the WEF in a different direction or reduce its influence significantly. There are some voices who express a desire to see the WEF completely lose all influence on the world stage.
Globalists and World Domination
Most Americans who are aware of Klaus Schwab and his globalist initiatives criticize the WEF as an elitist organization. They say it is disconnected from the needs and concerns of ordinary people. This view is held among both conservatives and progressives who object to centralized or excessive corporate power.
The WEF's focus on globalism and its influence on international policies has led many Americans to view it negatively. They argue it promotes policies that undermine national sovereignty and prioritize international agendas over local needs.
Announcements about Klaus Schwab's impending retirement have elicited mixed reactions. Some critics see it as an opportunity for the WEF to reform, become more transparent, or even dissolve. Supporters worry his departure could lead to uncertainty and instability within the organization.
A prevalent theme in Americans discussions is the belief that globalist policies benefit multinational corporations and the wealthy at the expense of middle and working-class people. Average Americans view figures like Klaus Schwab and George Soros as seeking power and even world domination through surreptitious means.
The WEF’s emphasis on global trade and open borders is often seen as a direct threat to American jobs, particularly in manufacturing and other blue-collar sectors. This is particularly salient among voters who support "America First" policies and advocate for stricter immigration controls and protectionist trade measures.
A common refrain many Americans cite in criticism of the WEF is its suggestion that people will “own nothing and be happy.” This, many say, is antithetical to Western values and the American dream.
Populist rhetoric often highlights the disparity between the wealth of the global elite and the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. This discourse is sometimes a point of agreement between conservatives and progressives in that both groups believe the wealthy and large corporations take advantage of average taxpayers.
Fears About the Great Reset
The Great Reset, an initiative launched by the WEF, aims to address global economic disparities, environmental sustainability, and societal challenges through a comprehensive restructuring of global systems. This initiative gets mixed reactions among Americans, often divided along ideological lines.
ManyAmerican voters view the Great Reset with skepticism and distrust. This sentiment is often rooted in concerns about sovereignty, individual freedoms, and economic autonomy. These voters worry the Great Reset represents an overreach by political elites seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to undermine national interests and local governance structures.
Many conservative and right-leaning voters are particularly wary of the Great Reset. They perceive it as an attempt to centralize power in unelected global institutions. This group is also concerned about potential infringements on personal liberties and market freedoms.
There is fear the Great Reset would lead to increased regulation and taxation, stifling economic growth and innovation. Peopleview the emphasis on sustainable development and climate change as a pretext for imposing burdensome regulations to harm traditional industries, particularly in sectors like energy and manufacturing.
Many viewed the WEF’s influence during COVID as a demonstration of the risks of trusting globalist elites with issues which have domestic impact. Many pointed out the dangers of global interdependence and continue to advocate for a return to more isolationist policies.
There is also a segment of American voters who occupy a middle ground, neither fully endorsing nor outright rejecting the Great Reset. A likely reason for this is a lack of awareness about the WEF and its initiatives.
Leftists and Progressives Support Globalism
The only obvious segment of Americans who support the WEF are Progressives who subscribe to a globalist view.
This group often emphasizes the importance of transitioning to a green economy and implementing policies that promote social equity. They argue the initiative offers a unique opportunity to build a more resilient and inclusive global economic system.
They see WEF initiatives as ushering in economic opportunities, technological innovation, and sustainable development. They appreciate the forum's role in bringing together business leaders, policymakers, and academics to address global challenges collaboratively. Voters who prioritize environmental sustainability and social equity often align with the WEF’s advocacy for the United Nations' SDGs.
Some liberal voters, however, critique the WEF for being too aligned with corporate interests. Despite the forum's progressive rhetoric, they worry it may not do enough to challenge entrenched power structures and economic inequalities.
The evolving landscape of digital currencies brings together perspectives from many voting groups. From conservative, small-government voters to progressive, anti-establishment advocates, many Americans are bullish on digital assets. However, as governments explore the implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) or other forms of regulated digital currencies, crypto advocates are vocal in expressing their concerns, and skepticism.
CBDCs are digital assets that use blockchain in a similar way to Bitcoin or Ethereum. However, CBDCs are also owned and controlled by the government. Because digital assets are completely trackable and transparent, many fear a government issued digital currency would threaten financial autonomy.
Many in the crypto community fear the actions of figures like Fed chair Jerome Powell and SEC chair Gary Gensler. They suspect politicians and government officials who have an investment in protecting the financial system status quo will work to impose greater strictures on cryptocurrencies. They also fear the potential of these figures to push a government controlled digital currency, despite their claims that the U.S. has no such plans.
Why Americans Like Decentralized Currencies
The traditional banking system in the United States, sometimes called “TradFi,” is often viewed through a lens of skepticism and distrust. Many Americans mention private banks and the Federal Reserve in relation to corruption, lack of transparency, and political scandals. A growing number of Americans suspect TradFi institutions of being complicit in unethical behavior.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, on the other hand, are seen by some as a potential antidote to the corruption and inefficiency of traditional banks. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies promises a level of transparency and freedom from central authority. This appeals to Americans who are disillusioned with conventional financial systems.
However, this optimism can sometimes be tempered by volatility in crypto markets and regulatory uncertainty in the U.S. for digital currencies. Many who view the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the IRS negatively voice concerns about government overreach. Crypto supporters often cite these agencies as a key reason for their support of decentralized finance.
The traditional banking system is highly regulated, which portends providing a level of security and protection for consumers. However, many voters view this regulatory framework as overly bureaucratic, slow to adapt to new technologies, and exploitative of Americans’ finances.
In contrast, the relatively unregulated nature of cryptocurrencies presents both an opportunity and a risk. Many say the appeal lies in crypto's innovation and the promise of financial sovereignty.
American Views of a Potential CBDC
Much of the crypto community prioritizes privacy and sovereignty over government sponsored consumer protections. These advocates, often supporters of privacy-focused coins like Monero, perceive CBDCs as tools for enhanced government surveillance.
Pro-cryptovoters argue a state issued digital currency would erode financial privacy by enabling real-time tracking of individual transactions. Privacy advocates vocally resist and criticize the potential implementation of CBDC.
Many are also skeptical about involving regulatory bodies like the SEC in the crypto space. Recent controversies around figures like Gary Gensler and Joe Biden have fueled distrust. Many believe regulatory bodies unfairly favor certain crypto projects who play ball with regulators and stifle genuine innovation.
Crypto has a strong base among libertarians who advocate for minimal government intervention in personal finances. There are also many anti-establishment Democrats and progressives who want to oppose big banks and promote financial inclusion. Across political divides, crypto voters see blockchain assets as tools for financial freedom and decentralized ownership. CBDCs, being state controlled, are seen as antithetical to these ideals.
Democrats Emerge as Adversaries to Crypto Voters
Democrats take a cautious approach towards cryptocurrency, often advocating for strict regulations. They emphasize the need for robust regulatory frameworks,which the claim will protect consumers. Democrat politicians express a desire prevent financial crimes and ensure the benefits of crypto are equitably distributed. However, this stance is often diametrically opposed to the principles of sovereignty and ownership that many in the crypto community subscribe to.
Republicans are widely perceived as more pro-crypto than Democrats. They tend to view blockchain technologies as an embodiment of free-market principles and innovation. They are more likely to advocate for a regulatory environment fostering growth and minimizing government interference. For this reason, even Democratic crypto voters voice support for pro-crypto Republicans.
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_Americans_(2).png)
_Americans_(1).png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)